Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: page_alloc: Reduce cost of the fair zone allocation policy

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 08/11/2014 02:12 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 07/09/2014 10:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -1604,6 +1604,9 @@ again:
>>>   	}
>>>
>>>   	__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, -(1 << order));
>>
>> This can underflow zero, right?
>>
>
> Yes, because of per-cpu accounting drift.

I meant mainly because of order > 0.

>>> +	if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) == 0 &&
>>
>> AFAICS, zone_page_state will correct negative values to zero only for
>> CONFIG_SMP. Won't this check be broken on !CONFIG_SMP?
>>
>
> On !CONFIG_SMP how can there be per-cpu accounting drift that would make
> that counter negative?

Well original code used "if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) <= 
0)" elsewhere, that you are replacing with zone_is_fair_depleted check. 
I assumed it's because it can get negative due to order > 0. I might 
have not looked thoroughly enough but it seems to me there's nothing 
that would prevent it, such as skipping a zone because its remaining 
batch is lower than 1 << order.
So I think the check should be "<= 0" to be safe.

Vlastimil


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>